Seems like the parties are missing out on a win-win-win situation. It could be a lot of fun for all involved for the activists to fly the new cheap RC helicopters* around as targets for the gun club. In this arrangement, activists get to fly RC choppers (possibly subsidized by the gun club), gun club members get to fire at small evasive targets and no birds are killed! (* eg: http://www.xheli.com/56h-s301g-yellow.html)

"You can legislate common sense but it doesn't do any good".Listening to the video where a drone crewman calls out to some one in the woodsHey you there with the gun, come on over so we can talk to you about your shooting down our drone. I learned long ago it is not a good idea to taunt an armed hostile person.

I feel pretty confident that operating UAVs in US airspace is illegal for private groups or individuals. There is a lot of doubt as to whether it's legal for police, military, and border patrol to operate these things in public airspace. I'm curious as to why the sheriff mentioned didn't arrest the people who admit to operating this thing not to mention the trespassing and invasion of privacy.

There is generally more to these stories than what's presented. It's pretty obvious the local LEOs want to keep away from this issue. Sometimes it's a discretion decision and sometimes they want to pay out enough rope to trip or hang somebody.

I don't think it is illegal to operate an unmanned arial vehicle as long as one stays out of controlled airspace (i.e. stays in uncontrolled airspace). As long as the club is at least 5 statute miles from an aiport, that should give them 1200 feet above the ground to operate.

California spends an obscene amount of money harassing hunters. Even those with licenses. It's ironic that the state profits from selling licenses, then uses the income to pay for "Fiash and Game" police to arrest and hassle hunters.California has two pilots flying turboprop planes, looking for a searchlight in the wilderness. Then they take the coordinates and send two cars out to investigate/hassle. There is a California law that prohibits the carrying of a loaded firearm on a public road, obviously to stop gangs etc. Well, they use that to arrest hunters because the wilderness tracks are called fire roads and, therefore, are public roads, thus they can arrest the hunters. Even if the breach is open, if there is ammunition in the magazine then the rifle is loaded and the hub=nter is subject to arrest. The cost of this 'enforcement' is enormous - and they whine about a state budget that is upside down!Oh, and this is all "To protect our native wildlife for future generations!"

Sorry Pat, as a life-long resident of California I can tell you: if you do *anything* in this State, (or even nothing at all) you are in violation of some statute or regulation. The carbon dioxide you exhale violates Air Quality Mandates.

Use of a radio controlled aircraft, not under direct control, and not in the line of sight of the pilot, for commercial purposes, even non-profit (such as this) requires Federal permission. Radio control clubs across the country are currently spending a lot of time and money trying to differeniate ourselves from idiots like this who think they have the right to fly where ever they want and invade peoples privacy just because they can afford the hardware. Fly one over my house and I'll shoot it down too.

It would take a specialized attorney, but It's my understanding that there would be an expectation of privacy on private land and the drone violated that. Since it is not a living thing what law prevents it from being shot at and hit while invading a private gathering on private property. It's pretty evident that these "activists" would be ejected from the private property in person so why would the owners or lessees allow them to overfly the area and photograph activities that they would not be allowed to photograph in person. No activist was shot and no game warden was called these guys are just non violent vigilantes.

Maybe they should try this over the white house and see what happens. Or maybe they should try to photograph Kate Middleton at her vacation home and check that reaction. Private property is private property and they deputize game wardens for enforcement of game laws.

These animal rights people seem to think they can do anything, anywhere, any when, but when things don't go as planned, the first they do is begin a whining campaign, attempting to make others look bad while evading responsibility themselves. I like the comment which said it's reasonable to expect privacy while on private property; though I'm not sure this includes airspace. Supposing these people had been filming from any conventional aircraft (J3 comes to mind or something similar;) would that have made this any more (or less) legal? The fact it's a drone made it a target; I'd be interested in knowing the invasion of privacy statute or tort in this case.

That's pretty much what I was going for. As for air rights over private property, I suspect it's a state issue rather than federal but I'm not a lawyer. I can promise you though, if my wife, sister or lover were enjoying my back yard or my back 40 attempting to get a line less tan, I would have no compunction about shooting down a drone and placing it roughly on or in the owner. It would be a while before he could mouth the word "boy". I might even give serious consideration to the J3.

There IS a legal expectation of privacy on ones property. If ANY law enforcement agency were to attempt to use this means of obtaining "evidence" without a warrant (which requires a probable cause affidavit), it would be tossed in a heartbeat. "Evidence" like this obtained by individuals or any non-governmental agency/party cannot be used as evidence in any criminal investigation. It may be submitted in an effort to initiate an investigation, but cannot be used in itself as evidence since it was illegally obtained. Any prosecution would require legally obtained, independent verified evidence from authorized sources. And BEFORE you jump in with stuff like "Well, Google Maps" does it so it must be legal. BIG DIFFERENCE, Google is NOT monitoring/recording real time activity.

There is a lot more to the legality of this type of surveillance activity, but basically, if it not observable by "ordinary means" i.e. without committing trespass, it is NOT protected. If I warn of " Posted Property, Trespassers will be shot", then trespassers by/from ANY method can be dealt with. Since RC/drones are NOT protected by any law, especially when violating some ones privacy, there can be no action against those that protected their property from being violated. If one were to forcibly drive a RC vehicle (whether miniature or full sized) onto some else's property, they would have no basis for a complaint were the property owner to beat the crap out of it or shoot it.

You are right in respect to my commend regarding gathering evidence - it cannot be used as evidence in any U.S. court. I forgot about this difference between the U.S. law and the one in my country. However, as you have noted, it may be submitted in an effort to initiate an investigation, and probably that was the reason they gathered it in addition to publishing the footage of unlawful acts that were commited on this property (there is a ground-based video on YT of them shooting and stomping on pigeons).

There is no 'probable cause' requirement! If something can be seen from off the property it is open domain and no warrant is required. That includes from a roadway, neighboring property, or from the air.Drones, whether private or state owned, can fly without impediment. Reagan's Administration had a dust up over Orange County Airport in California when the county tried to regulate air use to avoid aircraft noise over wealthy homes in Newport Beach. The Feds won, and air space is open, subject to FAA regulation and enforcement. There is an FAA restriction over operating an aircraft less than 500' above a populated area - your having a home makes this a populated area, so the procedure would be to file a complaint with the FAA. Your shooting down of the drone could incite a lawsuit for damage to private property, just as it would if you shot at any aircraft, as well as enforcement action for shooting down any aircraft (even a drone). This country has laws for everything - and the government has an unlimited amount of money to hassle us with.

Your statements all sound right to me. Only thing I want to add is that I would never shoot at an airplane as there is someone on board, but an RC drone, that I think is spying, would be fair game to me over my property and I promise they would never find it again. Sue me!

It's possible the drone could remain over the road and still observe what was going on. What would be the legal issues with that, if they are still over public property, but can see over into private property.

It is open domain - public land is public land. The Paparazzi rely on this to take sneak photos, and the police rely on this for 'probable cause' arrests and invasions. If something can be observed from a public place (even if it is on private land) then it can be used for enfocement action. Put it this way - if a cop wanders hy your house and sees you performing an illegal activity then he come come to your door and arrest you. The same applies if a police helicopter is flying above your house (airspace is a federal domain and if one has a pilot's certificate and a current medical and is current then he can fly over your house and take photos etc).There is no invasion of privacy if the activity is open and notorious - and this includes from the air. Google Earth has been sued over this and has won.

I shot clay birds years ago. Thousands of them. I never took part in a live pigeon shoot. As a matter of fact I thought people gave up that mideval activity a long time ago. Has anyone here ever been to a live bird shoot? If you had you'd know why they have to be held on "private" property. They are heinous, cruel, and completely unnecessary. I've been a hunter all my life and often disagree with the acts of animal activist groups, but in this case...shame on the live pigeon shooters!

I've shot clay birds as well, mostly as training to shoot upland birds, ducks and geese when you could bag more than one. Most of the pigeon I've bagged have come from the butcher or grocer. They frown on discharging weapons in their environment :-). Actually, I've never seen pigeons outside the cities and most squab is raised much like a Thanksgiving turkey. Most bird hunting is done on private property and I can't imagine any lessor being anxious to rent to a wacko with a UAV who would harass other hunters, at least the ones here in the Delmarva area.

Agree with animal rights group or not, everyone should agree with trespassing and invasion of privacy. Charges should be filed on the pilot, the government is considering using drones in the US in non combat situations. By not charging an individual with invading your property, the government is opening the door to spy on you!

There should be a group effort to push the government to press charges as well as a civil law suit filed.

I say the Activists should try yet again. Isn't four the limit for bagging drones while they are still in season? Who knows, maybe doing the same knuckle-headed maneuver over and over will yield different results THIS time. <chuckle>

What kind of asshole thinks shooting birds right as they're released from cages as some sort of "sport"????? I've been a hunter for many years but only for food and NEVER part of a "shooting fish in a barrel" scenario...or for a 'trophy'. Lots of big tough guys here with their big tough gunz. Bah.

Finally someone I agree with. I used to be a deer hunter and I have no problem with people hunting for food, but I do have a problem with hunting for sport - when you aren't eating the animal or using something from it - and just killing it to kill it. On top of this these birds are not even out in the wild, they are being released from cages - what is the challenge? Why not go skeet shooting or use clay pigeons? All I am seeing here are a bunch of rednecks at a club that are probably jealous of a pigeon that is more well endowed than them - that is why they have to shoot it. Does it make them "more of a man"? They are all probably married to their cousins and sisters and can't produce children.

It's call squab. Pigeons are considered a delicacy in the cullinary world, especially in France. Now you don't know whether the good old boys down at the Rod and Gun Club, collect those birds at the end of the day and invite a celebrity chef to dazzle them. So, let's lighten up and not turn this into a dick measuring contest.

It's called squab in the cullinary world. Pigeon are a delicacy in France, and may be considered quite tasty down at the Rod and Gun Club. You don't know whether they gather them for a fine french dinner or not, do you. So, perhaps it's time to lighten up, and stop with the dick measuring contest.

so you are going to stereotype anyone who is against dirty "cheating" style hunting and anyone against cruelty to animals as being an Obama supporter? So you are saying that all conservatives are unethical towards the treatment of animals? That sounds like something an Obama supporter would say too.

Question again is - why can't this be done with clay pigeons if you want target practice? Yes there are conservative/libertarian minded people on here that are against animal cruelty, which this basically amounts to. This is not hunting. This isn't showing skill by releasing caged animals in basically a captive environment. If you want to shoot ducks out in the wild ethically and you plan on eating the meat, I have no problem with that. But just releasing animals from cages for target practice and sport I have a problem. What I see at this club is a bunch of bucktooth inbreds just trying to prove their manhood that they are insecure about.

No, I'm talking about your snobbish attitude about a bunch of guys that don't fit in to your image of the perfect human being. Putting labels on anyone doesn't serve you well. The guys with the drones are doing the same. Pigeons are a game animal that many hunters seek. Since you personally don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong, immoral or illegal. The birds, if not consumed by humans will be consumed by another life form, hence the circle isn't broken. I personally wouldn't hunt the way these guys do, but it their life, not mine. Leave them alone. If not, your drone will be shoot down too.

Well, it's not their life they are shooting at. I would be more than happy if they were shooting each other... And then I'd rather leave them there to get consumed by another life form and thus the circle will continue.As for the conservatives/democrats issue, anyone who'd on the fanatical side is always wrong. It doesn't matter what you are. But as a philosophical exercise, some rednecks (usually dumb people with manhood issues) are mostly conservatives. But not all conservatives are rednecks...

Seems to me they wrote the article about shooting down a drone not the style of hunting pigeons or squab. Leave law enforcement to law enforcers before someone get's hurt. The guys with the spy plane must have pissed somebody off or they would be investigating the hunting practice or maybe they already have and found them legal.

So why kill something with the chance of making it suffer (ie bad shot just injures the bird, doesn't kill it) just to leave it to die in pain? Just so some hayseeds can have fun? That's not immoral? Go out in the wild -shoot quail, ducks, geese the moral way and consume it or give it to a homeless shelter, don't leave it dead on the ground.

Actually that would Animal Planet - could do an episode called "Pigeon Wars" based on Whale Wars and have the drones shoot off those rotten egg things that the Whale Wars guys would throw at the Japanese boats. They could get themselves a little F-22 Stealth looking drone like the Audy Gil boat.

Has anyone considered where the bullets might land? Using a rifle is endangering people for miles around when shot skyward. The local LEO should be going after the shooters for that. Now using a shotgun is another matter, for the pellets may not fly beyond the private property. That is why some jurisdictions require shotguns for deer hunting to limit the range of the projectile. Regardless of the animal rights people, the LEO should be protecting the peoples rights not to take a bullet from the sky.

I don't fly RC's but am told that they are given strict airspace limits vertically and horizontally. People get killed every year when one of them bores a hole thru their guts. Just like you can't fly your plane below 500' over someone's house, they too have airspace limitations. If they are flying within shotgun range over someone's head on that someone's private property- BANG!

Are we even sure that these alleged "pigeon shoots" are actually going on? I haven't seen one bit of evidence other than some fanatics claiming so. Could very well be a sporting clay match and this is just a bunch of anti-gun zealots pulling the heart strings of the general public. I's shot that sucka down too!

The "SHARK" activists might be liberal pukes but they're as big of rednecks as the pigeon shooters. Hearing phrases like "Come on out boy!", "Come on Son!" (that you would normally hear on the wrong rural road in Alabama) come from that nearly Canadian accent is really strange.

That occurred to me too. Local rules vary, but the target- er RC chopper was above the road so around here this would apply:Calif Fish & Game code§ 3004. Shooting Near Building; Safety Zone; Shooting Over or Across Public Road or Way Open to Public

(b) It is unlawful for any person to intentionally discharge any firearm or release any arrow or crossbow bolt over or across any public road or other established way open to the public, in an unsafe and reckless manner.

You are absolutely right about shooting a rifle into the sky. My impression was that it was a shotgun, but I don't know that it was fully spelled out. Nevertheless, I think the remote-controlled 'copter needed plunkin'. Just one man's opinion, though.

Since the pigeons are defenseless, I think they should arm the drones and the order should be that the drones can return fire when fired upon! That would be a good video watching the hunters become the hunted.

The private property was violating the rights of the shooters. It's not the destruction of the drone that is so satisfying as it is the pay back to the activists and their attempt at being a high tech tattletale. What gives the activists the right to overfly an area specifically to photograph what they think might be illegal activity. Law enforcement isn't allowed to do that. The Drone in some ways was a "threat" and the club members neutralized the threat.

Its the invasion of the airspace over a private area for no reason other than to do what they did in the vidio. If you watch one of them on line they try calling out those people on the private land taunting them.

It would be nice if the smart people in this discussion could look at the real issues here:

1) with the emergence of drone technologies, what new air regulations are necessary to manage their use, for safety as well as for privacy?

2) would it ever be appropriate for FAA to protect a pigeon-shoot or other activities by imposing a TFR? What activities fit, and which do not?

3) should animal rights activists instead fly a helo over the pigeon-shoot and thus endanger human life? I.e., where do the present regs stand on their right to hover and at what altitudes, without violating any FAR's? Could they legally pass over at 500'AGL with a larger camera and record?

4) in the big picture, is there a value to the general Public in transparency, wherein we should not discourage collection of video via drone, in matters such as pigeon-shoots (or pollution, etc.)? If so, do we want to rely on government officials to use drones and produce that video, or would we prefer to empower free citizens to do so, as has happened in Pennsyvania courtesy of Mr. Hindi?

5) where are the regs that allow the destruction of a drone? And, are there legal obligations on the part of the local law enforcement to issue citations and otherwise attempt to cease this destruction?

6) given that GA private planes (especially helos) are far more intrusive than drones, is there a need for FAA to revamp air regs to protect privacy and/or to maximize the efficient use of aviation technologies for Public information?

From my own perspective, I applaud this use of drones. I appreciate we have the freedom to challenge stupid activities such as pigeon-shoots. And I would much prefer we rely on concerned citizens to do this data collection, and not on FAA or police or other governmental entities, which all too often tend to serve one interest too narrowly.

Just what we need, another 2100 pages of new regulations. Re: #5 where are the regs. that allow an undeputized individual to spy on a person on their own private property. If you mounted game cameras on trees you could expect their destruction if found. Under certain circumstances you should expect to be shot at if you are on my property collecting information against me. If you fly a picture taking drone over my property you can expect it to disappear or be destroyed.

'From my own perspective, I applaud the the right to defend my freedom, liberty and privacy.' Your final sentence reminds me of the attitude in Germany before WWll. We'll have citizens collecting evidence against citizens. Maybe we should find a minority to eliminate. There are game wardens and police to collect evidence. Leave the job to them. You may have the ability to adapt a child's toy to collect evidence for your favorite cause, but expect the penalties that I might deem appropriate for a warrant-less search.

Jordan - there are plenty of dogs too, but we don't allow "sportsman" to release them from cages and blast them for target practice. It's not protection for population numbers, its ethical treatment and standards that is in question.

These people are in violation of private property rights. In most states,real estate is infinity to the sky as well as to the earth. So if another party wishes to use an aircraft to intrude on the property owner's private space, they do so at their own risk.

To all guys and gals who raise the privacy question: the club and its patrons were actually those who violated the law, but the district attorney is reluctant to prosecute them. The activists were gathering evidence, legally or not.

You'll need to explain that better. The club didn't violate anything unless there was a conspiracy to violate some law during a general meeting and then I'm not so sure. What law did the members violate?

Who really cares, pigens are just rats with wings, sort of like sea gulls. I do agree that it seems less than sporting to shoot them just as they are released from a cage. Now as for shhoting down the drone, that sounds like fun. It appears that the drone in this artical was only wounded, when the next one comes over, loose the bird shot and switch to 00 buck. That should do it.

Who really cares, pigeons are just rats with wings, sort of like sea gulls. I do agree that it seems less than sporting to shoot them just as they are released from a cage. Now as for shooting down the drone, that sounds like fun. It appears that the drone in this article was only wounded, when the next one comes over, lose the bird shot and switch to 00 buck. That should do it.

Shoot them all down! This is Pandora's Box. You all know what the government will do with these things. And by the way we have judges who have said we do not have the expectation of privacy in our homes and automobiles. Talk about big brother.

Frankly I'm nore concerned with these idiots smacking their drone into a airliner full of people. Did they get FAA clearance to fly the thing??? Right now it's hard enough for legitimate uses like University experiments in the spread of various pathogens.